Parachute for airplanes

[M1pilot]

Ballistic parachute recovery systems have been around for years on ultralight aircraft, and have been developed and tested on light planes such as the Cessna 150. Have a look.......
http://209.238.147.86/BRS29.htm

-M1pilot

[Sam2001]

I always thought, if a skydiver falls and pulls open his parachute, he get's slowed down, what leads to a softer landing. But why not try to implement that same thing on airplanes? The plane has a problem with the engines, ok, engine shuts down completely they can do nothing... But what if you can somehow attach large parachutes on the roof or tail of the airplane? So the parachutes are built in the plane and can be opened in case of emergency. But how the hell are you going to create a parachute that's large enough to carry the weight of..lets say a boeing 747? And if it happens above sea then we would have to invent something for the plane so it keeps floating.
It's maybe very hard to do but I always found it one of my greatest ideas. If it works it could save lives. But it's actually a simple idea, so I think I'm not the first one who comes up with that idea and I'm shure that there are already people working on it.

Anyway this is the brainstorming forum so I just did some brainstorming. http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

Sam

[U-96]

Even if you drop a jumbo nose-first at 5mph, it's still going to hurt it... it's all about inertia (which is why I guess it works with light aircraft and Apollo capsules) - you'll have to make a chute that drops it on it's wheels http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

[grandslammer]

Well also, can you imagine the deceleration (sounds like a new intel chip, huh?) going from say near cruising speeds to floating down by parachute? I mean, teh first and last are cool, but could you imagine in-between? BOOOOOOOOM!

But, perhaps a sucession of increasingly larger parachutes to slow down the deceleration to a manageable level. Each parachute being somewhat larger than the one before. I mean if you just had the one, (if it were strong enough) it would be like flying into a brick wall!

Of course, using multiple 'chutes would be "assuming" you'd have the time to accomplish this in an amergency situation.

Does this make any sense to anyone else out there?

M

[M1pilot]

The shear mass of a large aircraft negates using a parachute recovery system. And getting it slow enough after a catastophic failure from cruise speeds to deploy a parachute without either destroying the chute or the aircraft is another matter. But...try this...what if the aircraft were "compartmentalized" into half a dozen or so seperate modules that had their own independant recovery systems??

-M1pilot

[Sam2001]

Indeed, good thinking, but splitting the plane in compartments with their own parachute would take a whole new way of facturing. But it's a good notice, it would have more chance than the whole plane.
oops...this is your captain speaking...we just lost the back section of the airplane...that's about 32 people less...don't worry they will land safely...oh for seafty please fasten your seatbelts...this system is experimental...

[grandslammer]

I wonder if using "compartmentalized" assembly would have an adverse affect on it's structural integrity, or a postive one? Food for thought there...

Of course, if it would (and most likely it would!) have a serious impact on the cost of production, then most likely it would never happen, even if it were a great, lifesaving idea. This just seem to always boil down to economics and cost-effectiveness. Let's see, our projections show that by spending another 3 million dollars per plane, we could save approximately 17 lives. Hmmmmm is this cost-effective enough for us to persue............................................ .................................................. ............................................

nope.

M

[M1pilot]

I think a compartmentalized aircraft that could retain structural integrity as a whole unit normally, is simply a design challenge that could be overcome. Further, it could probably be built light enough to fly.... but at the sacrifice of passenger and fuel capacity. That alone would make it non-viable in terms of revenue returns.....big expensive airplane with a greatly reduced range and a smaller amount of passengers to pay for it.

I agree, manufacturing, maintainence, and operating costs would far outweigh what the airplane could ever earn. Who knows....with the advancement of stronger, lighter weight materials, maybe someday!!

-M1pilot

[ytay]

there was a whole article on this subject in the toronto star a few years back with the idea that the pasenger compartment could seperate and floatation devices and chutes could open.........i also saw a special of a guy who has been working on this idea for smaller aircraft and i believe the problem was the size the chute had to be and being able to compact it properly

[hd581]

There's definitely a need for this type of thing, and it may raise the bar for what they consider cost effective. Almost nobody survives an airplane crash.

[SysOpt]

When training for my private pilot's license a few years ago in a 152, I sure wished that I had one of those parachute systems on the plane. When the only thing between you and the ground is 2,000 to 5,000ft of air molecules and a couple inches of aircraft aluminum, the mind begins to fret a bit http://www.sysopt.com/forum/wink.gif. But all in all, it was so much fun I didn't worry much, and the plane was born the same year I was, so it had safely carried a few other people before me.

[U-96]

the most cost-efficient way would be to make the plane with a ramp at the back and give everyone parachutes. Unfortunately, such precautions tend to worry paying passengers. Perhaps individual ejector seats, or put seat sections on pallets, like with C130 cargo.

Voluntary jumping from a plane in a 9G tailspin isn't going to happen - just look how many people jump from wounded birds in archive B17 footage... not too many...

So many air accidents are instantly catastrophic (fuel explosion, bomb, structural failure, depressurisation etc) that survival, even for trained military pilots with the right equipment, is still pretty miraculous.

U-96

[edit]
like these:
1 (http://www.ainonline.com/su30photos.htm)
2 (http://www.f-16.net/photos/photo.html?other+0063)
3 (http://www.f-16.net/photos/photo.html?other+0064)
4 (http://www.f-16.net/photos/photo.html?other+0065)



[This message has been edited by U-96 (edited 04-25-2000).]